I applaud the ingenuity on all levels in this patch. But it seems to me that there is way too much backend knowledge encoded and/or duplicated in a front-end program.
If this ends up shipping, it's going to be a massively popular tool. I see it as a companion to pg_basebackup. So it should sort of work the same way. One problem is that it doesn't use the replication protocol, so the setup is going to be inconsistent with pg_basebackup. Maybe the replication protocol could be extended to provide the required data. Maybe something as simple as "give me this file" would work. That might lose the local copy mode, but how important is that? pg_basebackup doesn't have that mode. In any case, the documentation doesn't explain this distinction. The option documentation is a bit short in any case, but it's not clear that you can choose between local and remote mode. The test suite should probably be reimplemented in Perl. (I might be able to help.) Again, ingenious, but it's very hard to follow the sequence of what is being tested. And some Windows person is going to complain. ;-) Also, since you have been maintaining this tool for a while, what is the effort for maintaining it from version to version? -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
